Michael Press wrote:

Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short
of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a
scientist to determine the consequences of black widow
poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers?
Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His
report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified
to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his
experiences are worth at least as much as other victims,
and better than most.

When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the
subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to
accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the
hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation.

Subjective conclusions, whether hidden or blatant are still essentially
worthless. They don't prove anything.

When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself
I am thinking of two things.

1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo
procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test
subjects.

Ethics? I know what the word means in most cases, but I don't follow
you on this one.

A single person study provides little if any benefit. Subjective
information, perhaps, but not something that would constiture medical
research with respect to creating anti-doping controls. That's what
we're talking about, right?

Testing something on yourself and extrapolating to how the populace as
a whole would react is stupid. Reporting your dabbling in drugs to the
media as a scientific "proof" is beyond stupid. Ethics be damned.

2) Self-knowledge.

I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone
to observe the effects. His observations are at least as
valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an
end; better in my opinion.

Timothy Leary? Is that you....?

Frankly, that would be a lot more interesting - Le Tour de LSD. If
anyone at all makes it to the finish line it's a miracle!

R